From the University of York news that warming increases biodiversity. Since that’s a buzzword in the biology protectors circle, you’d think they’d be happy about this. Nope.
Research reveals contrasting consequences of a warmer Earth
A new study, by scientists from the Universities of York, Glasgow and Leeds, involving analysis of fossil and geological records going back 540 million years, suggests that biodiversity on Earth generally increases as the planet warms.
But the research says that the increase in biodiversity depends on the evolution of new species over millions of years, and is normally accompanied by extinctions of existing species.
The researchers suggest that present trends of increasing temperature are unlikely to boost global biodiversity in the short term because of the long timescales necessary for new forms to evolve. Instead, the speed of current change is expected to cause diversity loss. The study which is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) says that while warm periods in the geological past experienced increased extinctions, they also promoted the origination of new species, increasing overall biodiversity.
The new research is a refinement of an earlier study that analysed biodiversity over the same time interval, but with a less sophisticated data set, and concluded that a warming climate led to drops in overall diversity. Using the improved data that are now available, the researchers re-examined patterns of marine invertebrate biodiversity over the last 540 million years.
Lead author, Dr Peter Mayhew, of the Department of Biology at York, said: “The improved data give us a more secure picture of the impact of warmer temperatures on marine biodiversity and they show that, as before, there is more extinction and origination in warm geological periods. But, overall, warm climates seem to boost biodiversity in the very long run, rather than reducing it.”
Dr Alistair McGowan, of the School of Geographical and Earth Sciences at the University of Glasgow said: “The previous findings always seemed paradoxical. Ecological studies show that species richness consistently increases towards the Equator, where it is warm, yet the relationship between biodiversity and temperature through time appeared to be the opposite. Our new results reverse these conclusions and bring them into line with the ecological pattern.”
Professor Tim Benton, of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds, added: “Science progresses by constantly re-examining conclusions in the light of better data. Our results seem to show that temperature improves biodiversity through time as well as across space. However, they do not suggest that current global warming is good for existing species. Increases in global diversity take millions of years, and in the meantime we expect extinctions to occur.”
It is worth noting that species extinction is nothing new.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These conclusions are somewhat incorrect, in my opinion. Circumstances changing quickly favour a faster evolution as well. When circumstances are very stable and all existing species have had a lot of time to adapt to their environment, being highly especialised, it is increasingly unlikely that an individual with a mutation will have a competitive advantage against them and therefore become the beginning of a new succesful species. However, when there is some “abrupt” change and suddenly most of the previously existing species are not too well adapted to the new circumstances, it is easier for mutant individuals to have some possible advantage against them.
At some point the biodiversity fetishists will have to notice two much larger trends in biology.
The whole concept of species has dissolved. The qualities that supposedly separate one species from another are dubious at best. Too many exceptions.
And the idea that change happens only through slow random mutation is obsolete, as we learn more about the power of epigenetic change. It appears that creatures can change many of their attributes in one generation when necessary, or even during one lifetime.
These changes of concept should eliminate the basis for panicky predictions. Of course that won’t bother the biodiversity loonies, since they’re clearly immune to all facts and logic.
I predict the eventual extinction of that species of monkey known as ‘calidum terra scientificus’ as the earth eventually begins to cool.
Nowadays, scientists can’t bring themselves to call anything ‘good news’ lest they be struck off. Sad.
A civil servant received from a Government Minister, a report on the disastrous impact that global warming would have on the British economy and on the environment. Being required to comment on the report, the civil servant wrote “BALLS” in pencil on the top right hand corner of the cover of the report.
He then had second thoughts, for he realised that his career prospects could be severely diminished or he might even be fired, so he erased the word and then wrote “ROUND OBJECTS”.
After five weeks, the report was returned to him by the same Minister and under his words was written “Who is Round and exactly what is he objecting to?”
Perhaps the report in question was that shown above.
Not really anything new, Stephen Jay Gould was saying such with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. The more rapid the environment changes the more rapid populations adapt, even within a few generations depending on the species, and that means extinction of populations that do not adapt well.
Since the average life span of a species is 2 million years, and for every new species, another must go extinct, I don’t understand their problem with extinction. It’s a normal and essentIal part of evolution.
It is interesting reading about controversial situations like global warming and their effects on the things like biodiversity. Very educational.
More than temperature influences biodiversity. For example, physical space is a major factor. Tropical rainforests would not be as diverse as they are if they were savannah rather than forest. A tall tree canopy provides the dimension of height that adds a huge volume of physical space for a variety of niches. This study, even with a “more sophisticated” data set, draws only the grossest of conclusions. And basing conclusions solely on the marine invertebrate record, detailed as it may be, leaves out numerous other ecosystems not so well represented that may show a different trend. All in all, just another case of extrapolation beyond the data — stock in trade for the climate science cadre.
Wow! They actually figured out something I learned in Paleontology. Forty years ago! Dimpressive!
It doesn’t work the way they think. They seem to be claiming that the warming itself kills off some species short term and then others adapt. Like polar bears disappear short term merely because it is warmer and not from other factors like competition. If humans and all other land predators except polar bears went extinct today, then polar bears and their descendants would fill many of the ecological niches left vacant, despite increasing temperatures. That’s because with all the prey they would have it easy going despite their comparative disadvantages with other predators. Those comparative disadvantages don’t matter any more if the predators are absent, and polar bears can spread.
Species become extinct, it is what they do. It will happen to Homo sapiens.
To look at the fossil history and conclude that, without climate change or whatever, these species would be alive today is ludicrous. Just think how crowded the planet would be since 95% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Thank goodness.
Do these people belong to the WWF?. The WWF are trying to get money from the gullible by claiming that there are only 35 Amur leopards left and £3 a week will save them. 35 is far too small a gene pool for continuation of any species that relies on sexual reproduction!
These researchers haven’t had a look a Galapagos Finches (mistaken by many as one of the sources og Darwins theories) this can be found on the web with a little effort:
“What do the Finches demonstrate about evolution?
Though the finches were not important in the work of Charles Darwin, they do tell us something about evolution. In particular, over the past few decades, two scientists have done an excellent long term study on the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands. This is accurately described by the textbook Advanced Biology. (Jones, M., and G. Jones. 1997. Cambridge University Press) The authors recount how from 1977 to 1982 there was a drought on one of the Galapagos Islands, and due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger…
However, this proved not to be the end of the story. If it continued in this way, the average beak size of G. fortis would continue to get larger and larger. But this has not happened (p. 153)
This cumulative change does not occur for two reasons. (1) There are disadvantages to having a large beak, especially when a bird is young. This can outweigh the advantages. (2) The selection pressure on the island fluctuates. In 1982 the drought stopped and there was selection for birds with small beaks.
It can therefore be argued that the study shows natural limits to evolutionary change. Variation in a species is a good thing, as it gives them the ability to cope with environmental change, but variation does have limits.”
I’m not sure that I agree that the beak size would have continued to increase as there must be an optimum; but the speed of change over 5 years can leave no doubt that some if not all species with a rapid breeding cycle will evolve with the conditions.
[thanks but off topic, needs to be in the appropriate thread – A]
O/T apology:
3 Sept: New Scientist: Stefan Rahmstorf: If 2013 breaks heat record, how will deniers respond?
With an El Nino on the way, 2013 could be the warmest year on record. But the climate-denial machine will keep on churning
IT HAS been another “normal” global-warming summer in the northern hemisphere. The US sweltered in the hottest July on record, following the hottest spring on record. More than 60 per cent of the contiguous US is suffering from drought, as are parts of eastern Europe and India. In the Arctic, sea ice cover is at a record low and the Greenland ice sheet shows what the US National Snow and Ice Data Center calls “extraordinary high melting”. Global land temperatures for May and June were the hottest since records began in the 19th century…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528804.400-if-2013-breaks-heat-record-how-will-deniers-respond.html?full=true
Rahmstorf conveniently omits:
30 Aug: BBC: Paul Hudson: Summer 2012 – 2nd wettest on record
So far 367mm of rain has fallen, compared with 384mm which was recorded in 1912.
It’s also been the dullest summer since 1980, and cool, with mean temperatures 0.4C below average…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/08/summer-2012—2nd-wettest-on-r.shtml
brain Macker says:
September 4, 2012 at 5:54 am
It doesn’t work the way they think.
========
Agreed. If the climate warms, then warm adapted species can move into previous cold area and out-compete cold adapted species. It isn’t the climate change that causes extinction. It is the relative ability of different life forms to take advantage of the change.
The idea that new species appear in a linear fashion is not supported by the paleo evidence. New species appear in bursts, typically following extinction events when there is food available but nothing to eat it.
Tree dwelling kangaroos show that tree dwelling polar bears would evolve except for the squirrels living there today. It is food (energy) supply that drives adaptation. In seeking to limit access to energy, AGW policy seeks to restrict human population.
This is a pretty simplistic concept… not unlike the whole “CO2 causes catastrophic warming” hypothesis, which is far too simplistic to pass the “real world” test.
Species are perfectly capable of moving (well, except where we, humans, have eliminated that possibility). Climate zones historically have moved, and their inhabitants have followed. This alone pretty much blows away the entire premise.
These days Scientists swings there decisions here and there…We have no choice but to agree…
We seem to have pulled Whooping Cranes back from the brink. Their lowest population was something like 15.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whooping_Crane
“Professor Tim Benton, of the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds, added: “Science progresses by constantly re-examining conclusions in the light of better data (funding).”
Adaptation to warming is easier than adaptation to cooling. Cold kills. The key is that, with cold, plants fail to grow and then so do the animals. No choice there. With warming plants are less likely to fail, with some species competing out others, and then its adaptation and competition.
Their short term conclusions regarding warming are conveniently compatible with the alarmist claims. However, Swiss researchers have found that warming increases biodiversity on mountains as species move upwards with warming while they also stay where they were and others move into those lower areas. The result is biodiversity increases and the likelihood of extinctions decreases as the organisms are more widely spread than before.
PNAS is willing to publish papers supporting global warming based on consensus, using analysis of surveys and questionnaires of scientists to support an appeal from authority. It’s NOT science. Thus, why should I believe any of this? Their consensus results probably look similar to a list of researchers receiving climate change research funding.
“Science progresses by constantly re-examining conclusions in the light of better data. Increases in global diversity take millions of years, and in the meantime we expect extinctions to occur.”
Perhaps we should re-examine the concensus that it takes millions of years to substantially increase biodiversity.
You can visit a 1000 foot stratigraphic column in the field that was built over a period of 100 million years. But it would be a colossal mistake to conclude each foot took 100,000 years. A single 10 foot sand could have been deposited in one flood event lasting less than a month.
In a steady-state climate, why should biodiversity increase? Where as in a changing climate ecological niches develop where there were none. Existing niches by necessity get smaller. That situation applies pressure on existing species and offers opportunities for new species to take hold.
The detail in current petroleum biostratigraphy, and theories of Punctuated Equilibrium support such a view of more rapid biodiversity.
http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/gandg/biochart.pdf>
http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=stats
Seems that the press release authors have been well trained in that pseudo-science that educators call evolution, but is really a tool to support socialism and bash Christianity. Maybe they should talk to some real evolutionary biologists and find out how evolution actually works as far as currently understood. E.g., individuals do not evolve, populations do. This is a BIG difference. If a population evolves by segmenting its environment to become several species, did the original species go extinct? Many extinctions are of highly specialized organisms unable to adapt to changing conditions. The mega-fauna die off is still a mystery because it does not fit any of the patterns very well ( that and politics clouding the issue).
Repaired link to the BOEM Biostratiraphic Chart, Jurassic to Quaternary, Gulf of Mexico
http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/gandg/biochart.pdf
If this was correct then tropical zones would contain more biodiversity than temperate zones which would contain more than polar zones…
Oh yes, they do, don’t they?
Well it may be an obvious statement but at least it passes the common sense test.
All we need now is an understanding of how weather moves even faster than climate and they might be able to get a grip on evolution too.